Question

Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation has long been considered better than chest compression for people who have suffered a heart attack. To determine if this indeed is the better way, Japanese researchers analyzed 4, 068 adult patients who had cardiac arrest witnessed by bystanders. Of those, 439 received only chest compressions from bystanders and 712 received conventional CPR compressions and breaths. The results for each group was recorded where 1 = did not survive with good neurological function and 2 = did survive with good neurological function. What conclusions can be drawn from these data?